Misguided Responses By “Merit” Selection Supporters
October 31, 2008
Both Judges on Merit and Gavel Grab have posts attacking yesterday’s Wall Street Journal editorial highlighting the high stakes in Tuesday’s state judicial elections. The Journal is perfectly capable of defending itself – but the attacks themselves raise a couple interesting points.
The “problem with elections,” Judges on Merit suggests, is that “support by certain interest groups is more important [in selecting judges] than qualifications, skill and experience.” Let’s leave aside the insulting inference that Pennsylvania citizens are not competent enough to base their judicial votes on “qualifications, skill and experience.” What’s Judges on Merit’s solution to the problem of interest group influence in elections? Give one interest group — lawyers – the dominant voice in choosing who should sit on the bench!
Under the plan they support for Pennsylvania, by law at least 7 members of the new 14-member judicial nominating commission must be lawyers. When that commission meets behind closed doors to pick judges, does anyone really believe that Joseph the lawyer won’t have more influence than Joe the Plumber?
Gavel Grab – the blog for Justice at Stake – rolls out its usual public opinion polls which purport to show that 75% Americans are concerned that campaign contributions “could” impact court decisions. But a poll released last July by the American Justice Partnership Foundation found that 75% of Americans believe state Supreme Court Justices should be elected by the people. And a recent Harris Poll for the American Bar Association showed that 55% of Americans preferred judicial elections for judges, compared to just 19% who supported some form of “merit” selection.
How could Americans overwhelmingly support a system of choosing judges (elections) when they’re concerned about the potential influence of campaign contributions? Maybe Americans believe campaign contributions “could” impact all officeholders, not just judges. Or maybe Americans believe that democratic elections is the best way to hold judges accountable if they act corruptly and base their decisions on campaign dollars. Either way, Americans overwhelmingly oppose giving up their right to vote for state judges and overwhelmingly prefer elections over “merit” selection.
But that doesn’t matter. Because Gavel Grab says Justice at Stake doesn’t support “merit” selection anyway and hotly denies the Journal’s accusation that it has “pushed hard” for this system. Huh?
It only takes about two mouse clicks on Justice at Stake’s website to find that one method the group proposes for “improving judicial campaigns” is – you guessed it – “merit-based selection of judges.” Judges on Merit is the blog for Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts (PMC), which has been pushing to replace judicial elections with “merit” selection for 20 years. PMC’s latest annual report proudly lists the organizations that support its efforts to promote “merit” selection including – drumroll please – Justice at Stake! In 2006, Justice at Stake published a report called “The New Politics of Judicial Elections” which included a section called “Defense of Merit Selection.” On page 41, the Justice at Stake brags about several “jointly hosted luncheons” they sponsored for local leaders “to help them understand how merit/retention systems work …”
Apparently pimping “merit” selection on your website; supporting groups that promote it in states across the country; publishing reports that defend it; and, sponsoring luncheons to educate people about its benefits doesn’t qualify as “push[ing] hard.” I guess it depends on your definition of the word “push” – or your definition of the word “hard.”
At the end of its post, Gavel Grab solemnly intones that “public trust in the courts is essential to our democracy.” I couldn’t agree more. But there’s another element that’s just as “essential to our democracy.” It’s called voting.